Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Libya - civil unrest & now NATO involvement

So much for "protecting civilians"

FAMILIES are fleeing west from the central coastal town of Sirte, hometown of Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi, as rebels advance.

A dozen cars were seen heading towards Tripoli, 360km to the west, filled with women and children fearing coalition air strikes and the advancing rebel fighters, who have been pushing Gaddafi's forces back along the main coastal road.

Authorities in Tripoli invited a score of journalists to Sirte, many of whom called their embassies to ensure that they would not be targeted in any coalition air strikes.

According to a Sirte resident reached by telephone, the town was hit by air strikes throughout Saturday night and Sunday morning.

"The city became a fireball."

Most people, terrified, fled into the desert.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...s-rebel-approach/story-e6frf7jx-1226029131792
 
Any and all regimes have their black sides. All we can really support is some degree of democracy, some degree of civil and human rights and the ability to kick out a bat shit ruler who's well past his sell by date.
 
Any and all regimes have their black sides. All we can really support is some degree of democracy, some degree of civil and human rights and the ability to kick out a bat shit ruler who's well past his sell by date.

The latter is a foregone conclusion but the former will not happen. Democracy and human rights can not be imposed at the point of a hellfire missile. Have we learned NOTHING from Iraq?
 
The latter is a foregone conclusion but the former will not happen. Democracy and human rights can not be imposed at the point of a hellfire missile. Have we learned NOTHING from Iraq?

It's a very different situation to Iraq.
 
Afghanistan, then.

The parallels with Afganistan are pretty obvious. In particular the way the West allowed the Northern alliance to take Kabul. Except that in Libya the West has even less justification for attacking then they did in Afganistan. At least with Afghanistan the US had the excuse of 9/11. What excuse do they have for attacking Libya? None whatsoever.
 
Western engineered regime change by military force accompanied by vague and cynical claims of concern for democracy and human rights. Sounds like Iraq to me

You've shown a sophisticated and detailed understanding of much that has been going on, and then you seem to reach a certain point and throw all of that away in favour of easy sounding rhetoric.

I could say that Libya was the same as Iraq and Saudi Arabia "because they are Arabs" or "because there is oil around" or "because there is some desert".

littlebabyjesus said:
Afghanistan, then.

Likewise there are similarities but the situation is not similar.
 
The parallels with Afganistan are pretty obvious. In particular the way the West allowed the Northern alliance to take Kabul. Except that in Libya the West has even less justification for attacking then they did in Afganistan. At least with Afghanistan the US had the excuse of 9/11. What excuse do they have for attacking Libya? None whatsoever.

There was no nascent revolutionary movement in Afghanistan. Just a collection of opium sellers taking back control of the country from the Taliban. In terms of wealth, education, history, neighbours and infrastructure, Afghanistan is about as similar to Libya as it is to Spain.
 
You've shown a sophisticated and detailed understanding of much that has been going on, and then you seem to reach a certain point and throw all of that away in favour of easy sounding rhetoric.

I could say that Libya was the same as Iraq and Saudi Arabia "because they are Arabs" or "because there is oil around" or "because there is some desert".

That's just asinine. The similarities of relevence are not ones of geography or even sociology. The similarities are ones of Western intervention made for cynical self interest but shrouded in fine sounding yet utterly transparent rhetoric concerning either "freedom" democracy" or humanitarian concerns.

Neither Iraq nor Libya posed any threat to the nations attacking them

Both the leaders of Iraq and Libya were demonised following years of Western support.

Both were attempts at regime change by foreign powers concerned more with economic self interest and regional geopolitics than the welfare of the people of these lands

Both were (and are) presented as simple attempts at removing regimes that were identified as the sole impediment to democtatic self governance.

Both were carried out in the name of the people of those countries. Both were presented alongside simplistic narratives that promised those carrying out regime change would be greeted as liberators.


We have yet to see how utterly cynical that claim is in relation to Libya but we have ample evidence of how that worked out in Iraq.

A million dead. 4.7 million people displaced. Ethnic and sectarian warfare that has divided entire neighbourhoods and destroyed society. An ongoing insurgency that continues to bleed the country and has cost over 5000 Coalition lives. A nation plunged into poverty and and chaos and death. No clean water, rolling power black outs, appalling practically non-existent health care. Rising infant mortality rates. Lingering deaths from conflict pollution including depleted uranium causing rates of cancer higher than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 3 million widows. 10s of thousands of women forced into prostitution in neighbouring countries. A repressive government that fires on unarmed demonstrators and carries out torture and extra-judicial killings by death squads. Massive crime waves, assassinations, bombings, kidnappings and murder. A recruitment ground for every nutcase Islamic jihadist in the world.

That's what regime change caused in Iraq and that's what the Libyan people can expect from Western engineered regime change in Libya. I think the two examples have a lot in common. We will see. One thing I am absolutely sure of. The overthrow of Gaddafi will be the beginning of the problems for the Libyan people, not the end. Just as in Iraq
 
So Dylans, the result of your policies in the case of Libya would have been what?

Gaddafi still in power and slaughter and repression in Benghazi.

Would that really have been better?
 
So Dylans, the result of your policies in the case of Libya would have been what?

Gaddafi still in power and slaughter and repression in Benghazi.

Would that really have been better?

FFS. I have answered this in detail and in depth in a thread I started on that very issue. Please read it. I don't feel like going over it again here.
 
Likewise there are similarities but the situation is not similar.


True . In Iraq - they made up outlandish tales about Weapons of Mass Destruction which werent true . In Libya theyve made up outlandish tales about the Libyan airforce bombing protestors , which also werent true . Unlike Iraq though it has actually been established the tales werent true prior to the war for regime and resources taking place .

And in Iraq there was a predominance of western mercenaries such as Blackwater etc who carried out awful atrocities against the civilian population for many years . That was apparently a good thing . In Libya howver mercenaries doing this are apparently very bad . Even though they dont actually exist and therefore werent actually doing anything, having no actual corporial form . Unlike Blackwater in Iraq .

In Iraq a non existent link was established between Saddam Hussein and AL qaeda , as further justification for war against Iraq . In the case of Libya though the people they are fighting the war for are most definitely linked to Al Qaeda , with one known rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi having been captured on Jihad by the USA , interned in Guantanamo and then released to a Libyan jail .

128966_abdel-hakim-al-hasidi-afp_sg.jpg


And the Benghazi based Libyan Islamic Fighting group being a known Al Qaeda affiliate , contributing the second highest number of foreign Jihadis to Iraq and with bases in Afghanistan too . One would have thought Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi and his chums should be on a no fly list , but no . On this occasion they are the good guys and the whole of Libya instead arent allowed to fly on planes .

Unlike Iraq both Al Qaeda and al-Muhajiroun are fully behind the wests war this time and highly enthusiastic cheerleaders for it . Praising it as a war FOR ISLAM, as opposed to one against Muslims .

Nonetheless a UNSC resolution was passed authorizing a no fly zone to protect what are euphemistically called " civilians" , who are actually heavily armed combatants the western powers would like to see even more heavily armed . Almost from the outset however the no fly zone seems to be nothing to do with planes , they certainly didnt shoot down that rebel jet , the rebels did themselves . Its simply a no Libyan government zone , and they can bomb pretty much anything . Including planes and helicopters on the ground observing the no fly order . As well as tanks , jeeps , trucks , houses..the Presidents house..pretty much anything they want .



And this time the western media...well the Sun anyway - are proclaiming a muslim who supposedly flew a plane into a government building as a hero instead of a mad dog bastard who should be put down .

So its not totally similar , your quite right . Theres even more absolute bullshit and hypocrisy this time . And Obama has a fucking Nobel Peace prize too .
 
You asked me a reasonable question and my point is I have answered that very point in considerable detail. This is my view of things, if you really want my answer.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/threads/345642-What-about-Benghazi

So, another mammoth post that actually says very little.

Your massive post could be summarised : leave the Libyans to it - which would have resulted in the sacking of Benghazi, slaughter of its rebels and repression of the population.

You would have preferred that to happen than what is now happenning.
 
So, another mammoth post that actually says very little.

Your massive post could be summarised : leave the Libyans to it - which would have resulted in the sacking of Benghazi, slaughter of its rebels and repression of the population.

You would have preferred that to happen than what is now happenning.

Sorry it wasn't written for political illiterates who aren't capable of reading past a line or two. Stick to the sun.
 
Sorry it wasn't written for political illiterates who aren't capable of reading past a line or two. Stick to the sun.

My point was that you wrote a lot but said very little.

Your position is that UN intervention in Libya is wrong. Why not just say that?
 
And to extend on that, you would be happy the democracy fighters were suppressed and that this rare opportunity to get rid of Gaddafi be missed.
 
True . In Iraq - they made up outlandish tales about Weapons of Mass Destruction which werent true . In Libya theyve made up outlandish tales about the Libyan airforce bombing protestors , which also werent true . Unlike Iraq though it has actually been established the tales werent true prior to the war for regime and resources taking place.

blah blah blah

And the upshot of this is- leave the benevolent great leader Muammar Gadhafi be- or something else? However chequered a past some of the rebels might have, isn't it time some other bastards had a go at ruining Libya?
 
And to extend on that, you would be happy the democracy fighters were suppressed and that this rare opportunity to get rid of Gaddafi be missed.

My point is that Western engineered regime change will not and can not lead to anything but a change of dictatorial regimes. Sure Gaddafi will be gone only to be replaced by some other bastard. Sure Benghazi will be empowered at the cost of the oppression of a different section of the population.

Only a genuine national democratic struggle, one that embraces all Libyans, could offer any hope of genuinely representational governance and that was killed by the actions of the rebels as soon as they chose a purely military struggle over a revolutionary one. As soon as they adopted divisive language, actions and symbols and alienated half the country. It wasn't only military failures that led Gaddafi to Benghazi, it was a political failure. The intervention of the west sealed the revolutions fate but the revolt had lost before Gaddafi got to Benghazi and for that the rebels have only themselves to blame. Waving a flag that is detested by half the country as a symbol of colonialism, separatism and tribal privilege is not the way to win the country to your revolution.

Now your turn. Do you really think a democratic regime will emerge from the overthrow of Gaddafi? Do you really think Tripoli is waiting to welcome the rebels with open arms? What will you say when a pro Western /Benghazi based regime takes over in Tripoli and begins to repress those who benefited from or who remained loyal to Gaddafi? What will you say when they launch a wave of repression against their historic enemies and a bloody insurgency emerges from the ashes of regime change? What will you say when Libya becomes Iraq? and it will.
 
Now your turn. Do you really think a democratic regime will emerge from the overthrow of Gaddafi?

Quite possibly yes, certainly Gaddafi has controlled the state for so long there might well be a grass roots demand for one, excluding those who have done well by his regime of course but they will be a minority. There was a pre war peaceful revolt of crowds in Tripoli but Gaddafi put them down. There is a good chance there is a hunger for democracy, certainly I think there is a demand for life post Gaddafi!

Do you really think Tripoli is waiting to welcome the rebels with open arms?

No, and it will be a problem, the democracy fighters are not strong on the offensive and the Gaddafi forces will still have heavier weapons. How the rebels go about trying to rid Tripoli of Gaddafi will be interesting and not without risk. Hopefully some commanders will find a creative way so as not to put civilians under too much risk.

What will you say when a pro Western /Benghazi based regime takes over in Tripoli and begins to repress those who benefited from or who remained loyal to Gaddafi?

I think it is inevitable a new regime will not support what went before. Perhaps they will have a peace and reconciliation commission as they did in South Africa, perhaps they will take perpetrators to court and punish them. I don't know, it is an issue for the next government of Libya.

What will you say when they launch a wave of repression against their historic enemies and a bloody insurgency emerges from the ashes of regime change? What will you say when Libya becomes Iraq? and it will.

You seem very confident a democratic Libya cannot be trusted to rule itself, I don't share your confidence.
 
What will you say when they launch a wave of repression against their historic enemies and a bloody insurgency emerges from the ashes of regime change?

So here you're basically acceding that tribalism is a major issue in this conflict, and yet you call for a "genuine national democratic struggle"? That doesn't really square. It's like you'd rather see Gaddafi do his thing rather than letting these rebels succeed. More than a whiff of ideological purity here IMO.
 
Has this been posted?

The United States government has been working since February 2011 to create so much strife in Libya that the UN would be forced into sanctioning a US backed military intervention. Both the US and Israel were fermenting a fake revolution with well armed foreign mercenaries. The CIA/Mossad mercenaries and US special forces have been on the ground in Libya since Feb. 24th 2011.

http://presscore.ca/2011/?p=1870
 
No, and it will be a problem, the democracy fighters are not strong on the offensive and the Gaddafi forces will still have heavier weapons. How the rebels go about trying to rid Tripoli of Gaddafi will be interesting and not without risk. Hopefully some commanders will find a creative way so as not to put civilians under too much risk.

You are talking about the military. That's not what I am referring to. I am referring to the 1.3 million people who make up the population of Tripoli. Do you think they are secretly waiting with open arms for the rebels to "liberate them? What if they aren't.? They have shown no indication of supporting this rebellion. They may not love Gaddafi but there is no reason to think they have anything but resentment for the rebels or that they will see them as anything other than regional conquerors, tribal oppressors and traitors. There is no reason to think they will not oppose the rebellion or that they will not be repressed by whatever CIA installed regime replaces Gaddafi.
 
So here you're basically acceding that tribalism is a major issue in this conflict, and yet you call for a "genuine national democratic struggle"? That doesn't really square. It's like you'd rather see Gaddafi do his thing rather than letting these rebels succeed. More than a whiff of ideological purity here IMO.

You are wrong. Identity isn't fixed or static. It is based on very real factors, such as recognition of commonality, shared history of oppression, possibilities for life chances, access to jobs, promotions, schooling, etc. People can carry many contradictory identies around at the same time and it is possible to raise some identities above others based on concrete demands and the realisation of concrete needs. There are many reasons people may stay with Gaddafi, not the least is a belief that the alternative is worse. The replacement of Gaddafi by a historic regional enemy intent on revenge being one. All that could be overcome by genuinely inclusive democratic demands that offered all Libyans a stake in supporting the rebellion.

There was every reason for a genuinely national democratic struggle to overcome regional and tribal interests and identities and to capture the imagination of all Libyans. Unfortunately this rebellion didn't do that. It remained a regional rebellion and as such it increasingly alienated large sections of the population. I don't want to see Gaddafi succeed but I recognise that the rebellion couldn't win. Either it became a genuinely national rebellion or it fell back on the bankrupt strategy of calling on the West for help. It chose the latter and by doing so permanently alienated half the population
 
Back
Top Bottom